Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

In English We spell it with a 'K', so "I now dub thee Knight" is correct (but We don't pronounce the "K" -- go figure).

Who are you to say what he was dubbed? Maybe he was dubbed "Night", it may be a new designation or rank. Obviously someone may be also dubbed "Day", but there also may be "Dawn" and "Dusk", as in: "His Grace, the Dawn of Westminster".

I think this is a positive turn of events. Knights are getting old, and there are too many of them around. It's also no fun "dubbing" if the only thing you're ever realistically going to dub someone is "Knight".
I congratulate Sir Patrick Stewart, Night!

And to be further pedantic, he's not really a captain, so "Captain Sir" isn't actually appropriate. Appropriate forms of address would also include "Sir Patrick", and "Sir Patrick Stewart", but not "Sir Stewart".

Don't know where you got that idea from. In Australia we seem to be roughly 50/50 split among monarchists and those who don't want the British queen as our head of state. Probably not enough to pass a referendum (requires a majority in a majority of states) and the idea of a referendum was scuppered 10 years ago because it didn't have bipartisan support. Here we are 10 years later, and we've got another rabid monarchist/extreme conservative leading the "liberal" party (Tony Abbot aka "slime").

IMO it's in no way "patriotic" to listen to a speech from from someone who is almost entirely uninterested in this country, and whose speech almost certainly didn't mention this country (and if it did, did so in the context of the commonwealth). But I wouldn't know, as I'm an Australian who didn't listen to the speech (and nor did anyone else in my immediate family/circle of friends).

And to be further pedantic, he's not really a captain, so "Captain Sir" isn't actually appropriate. Appropriate forms of address would also include "Sir Patrick", and "Sir Patrick Stewart", but not "Sir Stewart".

I'm not sure what your point is, given that the queen just rubber stamps the honours list; it's prepared by the Prime Minister. As to the point of the monarch, I thought she was there to veto insane government legislation, but when she signed RIPA I realised that she was just a waste of taxpayers' money.

... than it costs. The monarchy is cheap when you think of the vast sums that are paid for such things as preparing for the Olympics.

The world needs one last country that still does the pomp and ceremony of imperialism, and the UK is the one.

I think the legislation that the Queen should have the right to veto is anything that affects the British constitution itself, such as modifications to the role of the Lords without their consent, or modifications to her own role. Like the US President, her job should

The Queen is a lot more powerful than most people seem to believe. Yes, she is a ceremonial monarch, but her assent (correct me if I'm wrong) is required to convene Parliament in Canada, Australia, and the UK. She is the Defender of the Kingdom, the head of the Anglican Church, and all the UK, Canadian, and Australian armed forces ceremoniously answer to her. Also, she does possess that veto power, but I suspect that if she ever had to use it, there would not be a Constitutional reform movement because most likely the situation would have been so dire that her subjects would agree with her actions, and therefore guarantee no reprisal from any Parliament. She is the Queen of Canada, Australia, and the UK, and she holds the allegiance of millions. If the UK parliament were ever to screw up so badly that it loses the absolute faith of its constituents, then I could see how the monarchy could reassert itself as an applicable executive branch of government.

Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background, coming forward only when needed. I can certainly imagine that if worst came to worst, the British Empire would reunite under Elizabeth's banner, or that of William (couldn't even begin to see that with Charles)

... all the UK, Canadian, and Australian armed forces ceremoniously answer to her.

Incidentally, I have been asking British troops (currently serving and former) now and then whether, in the event of conflicting orders, they would obey the orders of the Queen, or those from parliament/government/elected representatives.

Every single time, without any of them hesitating at all, the answer comes back "The Queen".

Of course, if that theory was ever really tested, I doubt that I'd want to be around to see the result...

I don't believe that's true of Elizabeth. Charles... maybe, but not his sons William or Henry. From what little I know, Elizabeth's a very formidable politician. She learned from Churchill himself, and I'm sure has passed on her savvy and expertise to Charles (who has shown he's not worthy of it) and to William and Henry (both of whom I think have absorbed their lessons far better). I can see how the armies of the Queen would support her against the parliament should Parliament ever truly screw things up.

i think that the a monarchy allows for a sense of stability while politicians come and go. Especially if they are able to remain somewhat outside of the day to day politics. But then i'm norwegian, and our short times as a modern constitutional monarchy have shown such things as a king using public transport when there was a oil crisis, and the crown prince and princess going to public school.

The Queen is a first class diplomat, which is her function as Chief of State. Britain is like many nations in that the Chief of State and the Head of Government are not the same person, as they are in the US. There the Head of Government is the Prime Minister and that is where the executive power resides. The Chief of State is a seperate person, the monarch in this case, and is basically a figurehead. She meets with diplomats and gives them, literally, the royal treatment. Works rather well.

Not saying there's anything wrong with the US system of unifying the Chief of State and Head of Government in to a single President, just that it isn't how the whole world does it. Britain is not the only country with the division.

Also tradition has its place in human affairs. It is important to who we are as a people, and helps give us a sense of purpose, and something to look to in difficult times.

Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.

Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country, than Clinton, Bush or Obama? And how the hell did Bush get reelected?

Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.

Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country, than Clinton, Bush or Obama? And how the hell did Bush get reelected?

Perhaps Citizenship and the right to vote can be secured through some form of Federal service. I'm sure I saw that is some horrendous film based on a classic sci-fi text somewhere...

Great flicks but I find it funny how you can put out a flick with an underlying message and so many will see the action but not the message. I remember seeing an interview on HBO when Blue Thunder came out with the director of the movie.

He said " I made Blue Thunder to show how inherently dangerous placing that much power in law enforcement's hands would be. Here is a weapon that can spy on you without ever being heard, see through walls, and could destroy a city block with the amount of firepower it was c

Other than demonstrating that you are willing to kill people for holding an opinion, did you intend to provide some argument to back up that assertion? We used to have the quaint idea that rights came with responsibilities. The right to vote should come with the responsibility to be informed of the issues on which you are voting. I would have no problem with requiring that people who exercise their right to vote also demonstrate in some way that they are going to make an informed decision (irrespective o

I think it was quite clear that he was satirizing the OP that said we shouldn't let everyone vote, since shooting (killing) the person who holds that opinion would clearly take away their ability to vote.

We used to have the quaint idea that rights came with responsibilities. The right to vote should come with the responsibility to be informed of the issues on which you are voting.

Many people in the US had the idea that people, "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," to quote the declaration of independence. Under this view, rights are inherent by natural law, not earned. It isn't that people afforded the ability to vote because they deserve it but rather that natural law gives them the right to liberty and the only way a government may (morally) exert power on them is by their consent.

While people do use the phrase, "with rights come responsibilities," it probably makes more sense to say that privileges come with responsibilities. Under the above view, rights are not given by man and, therefore, can't have any conditions imposed by man. Whether you accept that view exactly (and it definitely has problems), I think it's fair to say that generally rights are supposed to be inherent and vital, while privileges are granted by others conditionally, and that's what separates the two. Generally the only grounds for depriving someone of a right is if it would infringe upon the rights of another.

I would have no problem with requiring that people who exercise their right to vote also demonstrate in some way that they are going to make an informed decision...

We used to have literacy tests to vote in the US. The consensus view is that they were mostly used to keep minorities from voting, so since then it's not been a very popular idea here among anyone who knows history. The flaw is probably much more general, though; if people in power write the test that determines who can vote, and the vote determines who is in power, then you have created a positive feedback loop. This feedback will tend to make the system unstable and drive it toward some extreme point, at which point either it will say there (to the disadvantage of many in society) or there will be some major social upheaval (such as a civil war, riots, etc.) that will bring the system back into balance.

I think it's important to bear in mind what Winston Churchill said, that, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Democracy doesn't necessarily always (or even often) produce the best solutions to problems. It's chief merit is that it is relatively stable. It usually keeps things from getting too bad for any particular group, so it removes the need for the assassinations, coups, civil wars, and so on that are common under other forms of Government. Adding in voting tests would likely undo this main benefit.

Actually when the country was founded, only land-owning white men had the right to vote. It wasn't until the suffrage movement and eventually elimination of the Jim Crow laws (along with 6 amendments to the constitution) in the late 19th and early 20th century that everyone over 18 got the right to vote.

Health care, ACTA, and the DMCA are three things that immediately come to mind, when I think of cases in which we would have been way better off if everybody got a vote. Only allowing certain people to vote, will only work for you if the people who agree with you are the ones who get to vote. I think a better idea would be if people only got to vote on matters concerning themselves. For instance, if the Patriot Act only applied to people who voted for it.

The reason we abolished monarchy is that sometimes the king IS the asshat. Give temporary "absolute power" to someone, and his first act will most likely be to extend the period of time that he is in power for.

"That's all well and good until the king has views that you don't agree with."

This is the whole point of being only temporary, i.e. the whole purpose is to give absolute power to one person on the condition that he is able to fire people, and not fear for his job/finances/life/etc. This is why you only give it to "one person" for a limited time and any deviation from doing simple said tasks disqualifies you.

What do you mean by "check"? Certainly not a veto - the moment she vetoed any legislation, would be the end of her power to veto. And even if she happened to veto a law I also didn't want, I would be very wary of one person having that power. What happens when she vetos a law I do want?

We already have a much better veto system, as I said here [slashdot.org] - the House of Lords serves as an unelected house that provides a check. Improvements could be made, sure, but focusing the veto system on a single person chosen through birth is not one of them.

If you don't mean a veto, then what check do you mean?

She's neutral -- she's, ironically, the real voice of the people in gov't

So because she doesn't say anything, that makes her the real voice? That's a lot of use!

I don't see she's anymore neutral than many citizens who also either have no views or keep their views to themselves.

Also note that just because she might not endorse one political party doesn't mean she is neutral in her views (e.g., she gets primetime opportunity to give her views on political and other issues, particularly on religion, in the Christmas speech). And other members of the royal family also use their position to give opinions on political matters (e.g., http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/hunting/Prince--Ill-leave-Britain.2363203.jp [scotsman.com] ).

Please don't tell me the Queen is neutral when she's sitting on primetime national TV on Christmas Day telling us of the virtues of faith - including people of all faiths, whilst ignoring agnostics and atheists (and this is also a political issue in the UK right now, when you consider issues of things like "Faith schools").

I seriously doubt the knighthood was anything to do with the vacuous X-men/Trek work. Much more likely to be related to his work on the stage. I recently saw him in Waiting for Godot (alongside Sir Ian McKellen) and he was magnificent even though I've not got much time for that particular play.

I know this will sound like hopeless fanboyism, but Stewart was no slouch in ST:TNG, and he didn't just phone it in. I can't think of many other actors who could have pulled off "There Are Four Lights", or the episode where he lived an entire life in another planet and learned to play the flute (can't remember the name.) After a few seasons, the writers realized just how good "that Shakespeare guy" was, and they wrote some demanding episodes for Stewart.

Watch the first season, just watching Picard: it's a textbook example of how a talented actor can take a largely untried cast and some occasionally shaky writing and forge a solid character.

My personal favourite was "Darmok", the one where he's abducted and trapped on a planet with an alien he can't communicate with. I won't spoil it for you in case you haven't seen it, but it's a truly moving performance by Stewart IMHO.

I'm not a Star Trek fan (I've only watched a few episodes of the original and nothing else), but I really like Stewart's works. For example I enjoyed his "Christmas Carol" much more than any other Christmas Carol (and there are several out there) as well as Henry II in The Lion in Winter. Actually I have to watch that movie again now that I think about it.

Amen to A Christmas Carol. I had recorded it when it was on TNT originally in 1999, but set it aside and never watched it. About two weeks ago I picked it up and me and my family watched it. We loved it, even the four year old and the 2 year old. They rendered their opinion of Scrooge as "He's a grumpy old man who doesn't like Christmas."

I liked it so much I ordered the DVD from Amazon so I wouldn't have to put up with the commercials. Of course, the kids found the "Muppet Christmas Carol" so now it's

His talent was opening door for him long before Star Trek. But TV series launched him as a very recognizable actor. I am sure he would have been noticed with out Star Trek but it did help is Career and maybe got him knight a few years early.

I'd have to disagree. I think Picard was a great captain. Kirk had this annoying... habit of... pausing... for... effectiveness repeatedly,... but his... pauses were... not... very effective... IMHO. Other than that, Kirk was ok I guess:)

Neither is Bill Gates, but he was knighted. Patrick Stewart, however, almost certainly didn't get his award for being on Star Trek. He was a member of the RSC for a long time before he was Piccard and his recent performance of Hamlet was sold out over its entire run a long time before it started, and was also televised by the BBC on Christmas day.

Not as a result of being a knight. I'm not sure what the statistics are now, but in the '80s at least 50% of them were senior civil servants, and so held a lot of influence via their jobs, but the title of knight is purely honorary. This is a Knight Bachelor, not a chivalric knight, meaning that it does not come with the right (and responsibility) of defence of the realm.

Life peerages, which are two steps up the honours system, carry with them a seat in the House of Lords and so are lifetime appointme